Ben Wheatley’s disinterest in moving his newest film, Free Fire, past it’s setup of a gun deal gone bad gives it the momentum to grip us moment to moment as a feature length shootout with a tight script, but leaves it’s events feeling shallow and, as soon as the credits roll, insubstantial. Simplicity is often a key part of an action movie’s success (throw in too much drama and we start wondering when we’ll get back to the good stuff), but slipping only the barest of story details into scenes of goons popping up from cover to either insult or shoot at each other means there’s no impact when a bullet finally finds it’s mark.​With his aversion to telling a classic story, Wheatley makes sure to get as much mileage out of his characters as possible, as they’re tasked with balancing the mocking and gunfights that constitute the film’s atmosphere solely through their dynamic relationships. As 10 dealers and henchmen get involved in the exchange, the relationships a few of them shared before the deal quickly become overshadowed by a complex web of cheap rivalries and alliances that drive the shootout. With their back to back introductions and Wheatley’s clever use of the acoustics of the warehouse to constantly bleed their conversations into each other’s scenes, they’re able to carry the violence from its explosive start through its conclusion as one unit. Each of them are fairly one note by themselves, like Cillian Murphy’s “just here to make a deal, no funny business” Chris or Armie Hammer as the overly-chill moderator Ord, and only become interesting when paired alongside a group to banter with, but the explosive trickster Sharlto Copley creates in Vernon easily shines the brightest simply by being an exaggerated version of the classic dastardly cartoon villain whose eyes turn to huge dollar bill signs whenever a deal passes through their ears.

The greatest asset to Wheatley’s love of wit and gunfire, and the reason each shot and jeer fired in the battle is instantly gratifying, is the excellent sound design. The first time Chris tests out the merchandise is the moment the film sparks to life, as the butt of the rifle ramming against his shoulder sends vibrations through your seat while concrete explodes all around the theater. The kinetic energy of the shootouts all come from the ability of the audio to place you inside the chaos of the warehouse. This effect draws as much from the weapons locking, reloading and firing as from the characters’ voices, which are constantly building the warehouse around you. Two characters start a conversation at one end of the warehouse, and when we suddenly cut to another pair, we can hear the last pieces of their exchange bouncing off the walls in the distance. Then, there’s another voice shouting in the distance, and a moment later the camera’s right next to the yelling man. From the groups whispering their various plans behind each other’s backs at the start to Vernon yelling at every corner of the shootout, the film gleefully takes advantage of the opportunity for humor this layer of immersion adds. However, the film’s adherence to its immediate, wafer-thin pleasures means the precisely placed audio is only enhancing the “if you’re not shooting, you better be throwing a zinger” philosophy, rather than adding another element to a fully enjoyable package. Every aspect of the film is done in service of this idea, and while it makes for a laser focused blend of Wheatley’s favorites and a momentarily satisfying experience, it’s disappointing the best components weren’t given just a little more depth to work in.

I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with director/writer/editor Ben Wheatley, whose newest film Free Fire opens nationwide on April 21st. We had a lovely discussion about the filmmaking process and how Free Fire came to be. Enjoy!

Q: I saw that you recently tweeted out some screenshots of sets from Free Fire that you had built in Minecraft, and have read that you like to do set design in game. Where did that idea come from and when in the process do you do it?

Ben: It’s quite early on, usually. It’s not a new thing to make visualizations stuff in CG, but usually you need a team of people and it costs a fucking fortune. Minecraft is the only 3-D package that I can operate on my own. It’s easy, like working with LEGO. So you just build the sets in that and then you can walk ‘round it and share it with other people so they can see it as well. It’s just an easier way of doing things. It’s weird; I mentioned it once and everyone has gone fucking crazy about it, I don’t know why.

Q: And were these Minecraft sets used for story-boarding, or was it there to help you initially visualize the sets?

Ben: No, it’s really just an initial thing. It helps that you can change the field-of-view of the camera, which can help replicate how different lenses will look in the space. That’s really useful and hard to do with drawings. But it’s not the only thing we do, we also storyboard. Paki Smith, who was the production designer on the film, did loads of paintings and sketches before we got there to get a real feel of the full situation. So the Minecraft stuff was just the beginning of the process.

Q: In terms of the genre mixing that you did for the film, combining crime, action and comedy, what was your goal with combining these genres and how does it differentiate Free Fire from other shoot-em-ups?

Ben: I guess the film initially comes from wanting to make something that was on a smaller scale, something that you felt like you could understand on a human level. I see these bigger action movies and feel like they are becoming too abstract. You know, you are seeing these incredible images but you don’t feel attached to what is going on. I remember seeing the DVD extras for Terminator 2: Judgement Day, the crew was really excited that they blew up a building in the film. And I remember watching it at the time and going “Oh fuck, they blew up a building!” You see a movie now and they'll blow up a city or planet and you just kind of shrug it off. I just started wondering why I so loved the movies in the 70’s and 80’s that were far more modest in comparison to today’s action. I think it’s because films are starting to lack action on a human scale. I felt like this was the right kind of story to drop into and really feel the more human element.

Now the comedy side of it comes from me wondering how enjoyable it is to be dropped into that environment and for can long can they stand it. In every film I have made, I try to give characters a sense of humor because the world of cross characters that never have a sense of humor doesn't feel right to me. But seems like a badge of honor for a lot of movies to be a punishing emotional fucking misery ride. And most people’s lives, even when they are at the harshest, still have an element of levity. I just tried to infuse that into the film.

Q: Was the idea of going after a more human action movie where you became motivated to use mostly practical effects?

Ben: I like that you can’t argue with the practical stuff. Actors naturally react to practical effects because guns are firing real blanks and things are actually exploding. The idea is to get rid of as much phoniness as possible, because the less phony material for the audience to sift through the better. You want to get the audience as close to the movie as possible.

Q: Did you have to use any CGI?

Ben: Yeah, bits and bobs, but hopefully you never notice. The muzzle flashes of the guns sometimes don’t show up and you have to edit those in. Which is really quite annoying when you spent all the time getting real guns and using practical effects.

Q: Every character brings something really special to the film and played an essential role in the story. How did you achieve that and was it hard to make every character important to the audience?

Ben: A lot of action movies seem to be about one white-hatted character who guns down a bunch of bad guys. The “good guy” will gun down 60 people and I’ll be sitting there going “shit, man, that would be one of the worst shootings ever.” and then that happens three or four times throughout the movie. If you changed the music, this guy would look like a horrible murdering psychopath.

So the idea of making all the small characters likable and knowable gives them humanity and gives the whole film a kind of empathy that you kind of feel sad for these people. We shouldn’t be in the position of wanting characters in a movie to be dead, so I tried to make every character able to be rooted for.

Q: You’ve worked as an editor on most of your feature length films. What part of the editing process is the most fulfilling and keeps you editing your own movies?

Ben: I think that editing is the final control of a movie, the engine room of a film, and I am not keen on giving away the reins on that. There are very few frames between a good cut and a bad cut, so I want to be sure that the movie is exactly what I want it to be. I think like an editor when I am writing and shooting as well, so I can be confident when I am shooting that I have whatever material I need because I am the one who edits the final product.

Q: Why did you choose not to have any explicit details about the setting of Boston, though the movie is set there?

Ben: It was a kind of respect for Boston and a knowing that (chuckling) I’d eventually have to face people who were actually from Boston. I thought it wasn’t important to be overly reliant on details about Boston. There is a bit of historical detail about the guns being moved to Ireland, but I didn’t want the film to end up being diluted by the actual history of Boston in the 70’s. The film doesn’t even have a date or location stamp, so it really doesn’t matter to the film. It can become a sideshow, and I didn’t want that.

And also, we know that there are plenty of films that have taken place within Boston with Bostonian actor and the fucking accents are still wrong. We didn’t want to get into that whole issue, so we avoided it all together.

Q: Why did you pick the time period of the 70’s? Was it specifically for the subplot of the guns being for the Irish?

Ben: Yeah, it was pretty much specifically for that. On the practical level, it is also about getting rid of the issue of mobile phones. The mobile phone has kind of screwed over the thriller genre. If the movie took place in modern times, they’d all just phone for ambulances and it’d be over before it really started.

I also wanted to make sure the movie didn’t get to tied up in the characters being part of the mafia or Whitey Bulger's gang or whatever. These things have kind of become used too much, so having the two sets of criminals turn up to buy these guns with the context of the IRA behind it, they seem less off-the-peg. It also makes the film seem more refreshed with more characters from abroad.

Q: Who was your favorite character and why?

Ben: This is a difficult one to answer because the actors are all very active on social media, so they’ll find out and give me hell. The more I think about it, the more I realize my favorite is Steve-O, the Sam Riley character. Whether or not you believe the heinous things that are said about him throughout the film, he seems to just like the chaos of dragging everyone down. Even though it's absolutely unhealthy, to him it a hell of a lot of fun.

Most of the films I write reviews about for this blog fall into one of two categories: stereotypical “nerdy” science fiction, superhero, and other speculative fiction genres, and weird independent films. However, once in a while I like to break from my own pattern and review a movie I might not normally consider doing. A while ago I did this for The Promise, a mostly strong historical drama film which is bogged down by its inclusion of a generic love story.

In the early 20th century, Mikael (Oscar Issac) is a man who runs an apothecary shop in a small village in Armenia, then ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Although he enjoys working in the shop which his family has owned for generations, he has always dreamed of becoming a doctor. For this reason, he agrees to an arranged marriage with the daughter of a wealthy family, and uses the dowry money to enroll in a prestigious medical school in the capital of the Empire, Constantinople (now Istanbul). While there, he meets and falls in love with another Armenian woman named Ana (Charlotte Le Bon) who lives in the city with her American journalist boyfriend Chris (Christian Bale). However, things take a turn for the worst when the Empire is embroiled in the First World War, and public sentiment against the country’s Armenian population begins to turn.

The Promise is in many ways a throwback to the epic historical romances of days gone by. It has the gorgeous location shoots in exotic locales, the passionate love story (complete with love triangle), and the aura of a time and place long vanished. The first and last of those points are very well done in the film, which really succeeds at evoking the romance of its time period with its cinematography, set and costume design, and visual style. If you’re a fan of historical dramas, for sheer immersion factor this one shouldn’t be missed.

However, where the film drags is the love story itself. It’s not badly written, exactly, but it does feel very generic. It’s very similar to what you see in many of the films this one draws inspiration from, but it never lives up to those classics. Apart from that, I’m not even sure the love story was needed at all in this film. The Armenian Genocide is a very heavy subject, which the film depicts fully and accurately (which is surprising considering how unknown the event is in the United States). The second half of the film, where the real meat of the plot is, excises most of the romance and I think the film was better off for it, since it picked up the pace and allowed a greater focus on the horrible events themselves.

Essentially, The Promise is a solid period piece which unfortunately has to share its screen time with a middling love story. If the latter had been cut from the film, it probably would have been an excellent period piece. However, even as it stands, the film is still worth seeing if you enjoy a good historical epic or want to learn about the sadly overlooked Armenian Genocide.

​It is truly odd to watch the eighth movie in a series without having ever seen a single other film in said series. This problem becomes more exacerbated when you quickly realize that, unlike stepping into, say, the eighteenth James Bond movie without having seen any of the others, all eight of the movies in the Fast and Furious franchise are canonically linked. This is a fact made even more confusing when you realize that a series of films that weas once about underground racing is now about international espionage, heists and fucking huge explosions. I had heard about the ridiculous nature of these movies, especially those since Fast Five, so I was eager to be subjected to a level of unprecedented lunacy. And I was not disappointed.

As a little experiment, I am going to attempt to explain the plot of this film and how it links to the others without opening Wikipedia or IMDB. Strap in, folks. Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are on their honeymoon in Cuba, getting into a street race to try and remind the audience what the series used to be about. While in Havana, Dom is approached by a mysterious woman who is codenamed Cipher (Charlize Theron), who shows Don something that forces him to oppose his team and family. So when Dom and his team (Letty, Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson, Missandei from Game of Thrones, and The Rock) are hired by the government to steal an EMP from the Germans(?), Dom takes the EMP for Cipher and gets The Rock arrested. With Dom and Cipher too dangerous as a team, Shadowy Government Dude and his young recruit (Kurt Russell and Scott Eastwood) force Dom’s old team to work with Bad Guy from a Previous Movie (Jason Statham) to take him down.

Confused? At first, I was too. The film throws around names and plot-points from previous movies quite a bit, which can make some of the film's big reveal moments seem lackluster for those of us who haven’t followed the series since the beginning. However, the plot is such standard action-movie fare that you pick up what is going on very quickly. You don’t need to have seen the prior movies to know that there is beef between The Rock and Statham, or that the team has dealt with Kurt Russell before. Details like this are revealed through the formulaic storytelling that litters Fate of the Furious, something that would be a much bigger problem if the film didn’t fully embrace the ridiculousness of its nature.

Speaking of which, this movie is goddamn crazy. I don’t think I can give some of the action sequences justice in text, but they are absolutely absurd and off-the-wall in the best way, so I’ll try to describe some of what happens. Cipher hacks into a bunch of cars on the top stories of a parking garage and forces them to drive through the windows to rain down on a limousine that is carrying the Russian ambassador and a suitcase of nuclear launch codes. The Rock gets shot with a rubber bullet, flexes the bullet out of his skin, does what can be only described as the fiercest battle-cry I’ve ever heard and proceeds to headbutt the shooter through his riot helmet. The Rock also clotheslines two people at once, rips a concrete structure out of a wall and punches a guy so hard that he does a full flip before his body hits the ground. A nuclear submarine fires a heat-seeking missile at Dom, who avoids it by using a modification in his car to jump over the sub and forcing the missile to blow-up the sub. As the sub explodes and it appears Dom will be engulfed in flames, his team creates a car-barricade to save him.

But all of this craziness is what makes the film fun. The scenes aren’t shot and edited in a way that is particularly groundbreaking or spectacular, but the sheer scope of the action sequences makes up for this. Having seen the film in IMAX, the cacophony of sound and visuals were a spectacle to behold. Maybe I would feel differently if I had seen the other films, as I am sure this is essentially a re-hash of at least the last three Furious movies, but I was thoroughly entertained during the action segments. Unfortunately, the movie loses a lot of steam when it tries to pretend that it has any semblance of dramatic weight. All of the characters feel like stereotypical place-holders, simply there to get us from action sequence to action sequence. And while none of them do a bad job (annoying characters like in Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are the bane of flashy action films), none of them bring anything to the table when the movie tries to push its themes of family and trust.

I feel like anybody who wants to see The Fate of the Furious is going to get exactly what they want. The movie is everything it appears to be: a shallow but entertaining romp through a series of increasingly ridiculous action set-pieces. If you are expecting anything more than that, you are definitely looking in the wrong place. But for those of you who are clamoring to see Jason Statham do this to two guys in riot gear or watch hundreds of cars slam into each other, you are in luck.

About a month ago I wrote a review of Kong: Skull Island. Part of the reason I did not personally care for it was because I’m not really a fan of kaiju movies. However, there are exceptions to every rule, and once in a while there comes a kaiju movie that is unique enough that even non-fans of the genre like myself will enjoy. One of these films is Colossal.

Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is going through a rut in her life. She lost her job and has lost the motivation to find a new one. Worse, her boyfriend Tim (Dan Stevens) has just broken up with her, which is a serious problem because she lives in his apartment. With few options, she moves from New York City back to her hometown in upstate New York, where she reconnects with an old friend from school named Oscar (Jason Sudeikis). However, things take a turn for the bizarre when a giant monster attacks Seoul and, amazingly, Gloria seems to be controlling it.

Although I described it earlier as a kaiju film, Colossal is really more of a smart, indie drama film- which just happens to have giant monsters in it. Although the film features enormous creatures wreaking destruction in a faraway land, the monsters and their fights are really a metaphor for the cataclysmic destruction that human beings can wreak on each other. In particular, the film takes aim at gender dynamics, bullying, and the psychology of abuse. It’s definitely the most ‘real’ kaiju movie ever made (with the possible exception of Cloverfield, another personal favorite), and although it likely won’t satisfy those who just go for Godzilla, the top-class human drama should put this film on the map of any self-respecting film goer.

However, the film is also wickedly funny. Writer/director Nacho Vigalondo expertly uses the tropes inherent in kaiju films in order to infuse the movie with the same sort of absurdist comedy recently seen in Swiss Army Man and The Lobster. And although the film is incredibly quirky it doesn’t shy away from serious drama and isn’t afraid to get dark. It’s a tough balancing act, but Vigalondo pulls it off amazingly well, managing to forge a coherent story out of so many disparate pieces and genres.

This feat is also enabled by the expert acting on display from both Hathaway and Sudeikis. Both of them play against type in the film- Gloria is a sympathetic character at her core but she struggles with motivational issues and alcohol, while Oscar is outwardly friendly and sociable person who later reveals a much darker side. Although the writing of both characters can be a bit erratic at times, both actors commit fully to the weirdness of the film, bestowing an earnestness and passion characteristic of the best independent films.

So, is Colossal a kaiju movie? Sort of. Is it comedy? Certainly. And does it have compelling human drama? Absolutely yes. It is a bizarre amalgam of genres and tropes that Nacho Vigalondo somehow managed to forge into a coherent whole. It’s a miracle how well it works, let alone that it was even made. Regardless of whether of or not you enjoy giant monster movies, Colossal is one that should not be missed.

​I have to say that I wasn’t really expecting much from this movie but I left the theater pleasantly surprised. Gifted is a perfectly decent movie with engaging characters that overpower the familiar story. Mckenna Grace stands out from the sea of performances like this and is another rising child star who you will undoubtedly see on the big screen for years to come. It’s an adequate family film that plays with your emotions in a way that might come off as overly manipulative to some viewers but still resonates nevertheless.

The plot follows intellectually gifted 7-year-old Mary (Mckenna Grace) who demonstrates extraordinary mathematical talent on her first day of school. This propels her into a ferocious custody battle between her uncle Frank (Chris Evans) and grandmother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan). Frank is adamant that Mary be enrolled in regular public school while her grandmother believes that Mary is a "one-in-a-billion" mathematical prodigy who should be specially tutored in preparation for a life devoted to mathematics. It emerges that Mary's mother had been a promising mathematician, dedicated to the Navier–Stokes problem before committing suicide when Mary was six months old. Mary has to deal with the swarm of adults deciding her future for her and the new details surrounding her mother’s death while desperately trying to cling on to some sense of normalcy.

The charming cast is what makes Gifted worth seeing above all else. It’s not Chris Evan’s best role by any stretch of the imagination but like Snowpiercer, it shows what else he is capable of outside of being Captain America. Octavia Spencer, who plays a relatively small part, has the funniest lines and adds much needed levity in the midst of the growing drama. However, I really wish the narrative took some left turns because generic storytelling only works up to a point and it’s what holds this movie back from being a great picture. That being said, I found myself captivated by certain scenarios that pull at the heartstrings in a big way.

There is also a blatant amount of exposition in this movie that makes it hard to sit through at times. The several court scenes have the most impassioned exchanges but suffer from too much information delivered in bite sized sequences. At a runtime just under two hours the movie doesn’t overstay its welcome but certain excerpts could have easily been edited out without much consequence to the overall story. Still, most dialogue driven scenes are well paced and will hold your attention. The final confrontation between Frank and Evelyn is powerful and will likely leave a lasting impact on the audience.

Gifted is a well-executed independent movie with compelling emotional drama that only intensifies as the film goes on, culminating in a touching yet predictable resolution. It’s an interesting next step in director Marc Webb’s career, who has worked on everything from romantic comedies ((500) Days of Summer) to giant blockbusters (The Amazing Spider Man). Despite the safe story, the memorable moments are enough to make this something worth your time.

​A remake of the 1979 film of the same name, Going in Style sees three legendary actors working together on an unconventional heist movie. While ultimately a letdown, there are enough bright spots to make it a passable viewing experience. When the company they worked for is bought out, retirees Willie (Morgan Freeman), Joe (Michael Caine) and Albert (Alan Arkin) see their pensions become a casualty of the restructuring. Inspired by a bank robbery Joe witnesses, the trio decide to take back what is rightfully theirs and cripple the bank holding the company’s pension funds.

If you can get behind the movie’s oddball premise, there’s a good chance you’ll have some fun here. It plays with the tropes of the genre but never fully goes all the way with its execution. It’s no Hell or High Water which oddly enough touches on some of the same themes in this film but the cast draws some big laughs. Alan Arkin has the best one liners as the curmudgeon who is dragged into this caper against his best wishes. The movie also has one of the funniest chase scenes, (bit of a stretch to call it that) I’ve seen in a long time along with a hilarious police lineup made up of senior citizens. That’s about it though. This comedy is thinly written and feels uninspired despite the overall quirky idea. We’re introduced to a bunch of characters outside of our main crew who are transparent plot devices instead of compelling personalities.

The actual story is just about as predictable as you would expect with no interesting curveballs thrown along the way. However, I will say that there’s something that reminds me of the Ocean's movies in that the characters navigate this new world with a certain flair. Their technique just lacks finesse as it becomes abundantly clear that these numbskulls are rolling the dice on this plan no matter what. Frankly, they haven’t got much to lose since being thrown in prison seems a better way to spend the last few years of their short-lived existence than their current situation. These elderly thieves aren’t hardened criminals but rather desperate men making a last-ditch effort to put the scraps of their lives back together.

Going in Style is not a movie you need to rush out and see opening weekend in theaters. Check it out if you’ve got a couple of hours to kill on a random afternoon. Better yet, you can rent it in a few months on VOD. It’s a perfectly disposable movie that’ll give you a couple of laughs as you watch three veteran actors bumble around on screen for an hour and a half.

Okay, full disclosure right at the start of this: I am a big fan of the Ghost in the Shell franchise, and I’ve seen most of the prior anime adaptions. For this reason, I had not planned to cover the release of this newest adaption, since I thought it might be best to have someone unfamiliar with the franchise write our review. However, because of reasons, plans changed and here I am writing this review, and I will do my best to leave my fanboy side out of it. Now that that’s out of the way…​The newest incarnation of the iconic cyberpunk series tells a new story- the background of its central character: The Major (played by Scarlett Johansson- don’t worry, I’ll get to that). One year before the events of the film, she was saved from near death by an experimental medical procedure which transplanted her brain into an artificial body. Although most people in this future are enhanced with cybernetics implants to some degree, she is the first person to be given a completely new body. Following this, she became the leader of a government counterterrorism unit called Section 9, which also includes her teammate Batou (Pilou Asbæk) and the team’s supervisor Daisuke Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano). But when researchers and executives working for the company which created her body, Hanka Robotics, start turning up dead, the Major quickly discovers a conspiracy which leads her to start questioning her own identity.

If I had to describe this version of Ghost in the Shell in a few words, I would choose “distilled, visually stunning, and cool”. In regards to the first of those, my one complaint about the movie is that its plot is somewhat rudimentary. It’s a story of how humans struggle to define their identity in a world where the boundaries between human and machine are increasingly blurred. It’s a plot we’ve seen done, and done better, many times before, most obviously by the earlier incarnations of the same franchise and by Blade Runner (which itself heavily inspired the franchise). I think some of this can be chalked up to the film's run time, which clocks in at a surprisingly brief 106 minutes.

However, where this film does succeed is what I call “the cool factor”. Although it heavily streamlines the philosophical mind screw that the original anime film is known for, I think that this film is the best cyberpunk action work out of all of them. The action sequences are very well done, topping any of the animated versions due to sheer production values. Many of the best action sequences are actually lifted directly from previous versions and recontextualized to fit into this movie, creating a sort of cinematic remix. The acting is also great, particularly by Johansson (who expertly communicates her character’s disconnection from the rest of humanity), Asbæk (who plays Batou very faithful to the previous versions), Michael Pitt (who plays the villain), and Kitano (who is just really cool).

And the visuals, both special effects and cinematography, are absolutely stunning. The film has a really unique visual style which draws on elements of the original anime, other cyberpunk works, and the crazy neon colors of a Nicolas Winding Refn film and then adds building-sized holograms and surreal cyberscapes on top. It’s honestly one of the best-looking films I’ve seen in a long time, and if you’re into cinematography and effects this movie is a can’t miss.

And, of course, I suppose I should address all the controversy regarding the casting of Scarlett Johannsson in the film’s lead role. Another full disclosure- I personally thought that the controversy was extremely overblown, especially because the majority of the people up in arms about it had seemingly never seen any part of the franchise. However, without getting into spoiler territory, there is actually a very good story reason why the Major is played by a white actress.

So is this version of Ghost in the Shell the best ever incarnation of the decades-old franchise? No- it’s nowhere as deep and complex as some of its other versions. However, the film is still a gorgeous and incredibly cool cyberpunk movie which combines old elements with a unique style to create something new. It won’t become a cultural touchstone by any means, but I think it’s a worthy addition to the (personally) beloved franchise.